There is so much wrong with the American healthcare system. It is hobbled by mandates, subsidies, price controls, and every manner of middleman standing between you and what you want.

Fixing all of this – and the bad regulations date back decades if not a full century – requires far more political courage that D.C. has mustered in my lifetime.

Or we could just take the easy route: let insurances offer to willing buyers whatever kinds of healthcare they want.

I explain this in the video below.

There were many bad features of Obamacare, as people are now fully discovering. It combined a mandate that insurers not discriminate against preexisting conditions with community pricing, factors which caused the so-called death spiral. It put too many restraints on competition across geographic lines. It imposed what amounts to a new tax.

But one of the worst features is hardly mentioned. It prepackaged what precisely must be insured, and allowed no room for flexibility. This is one reason premiums rose so much so fast. Insurers simply tallied up the benefits and the risks and dished out new terms. You had no choice in the matter.

We don't do this in any other part of life. If you go to McDonald's and ask for fries, they don't say, "Sorry, we can't sell those separately. You have to buy the double Quarter Pounder Value Meal with a dessert, or else we can't sell you anything."

My proposal is simple. Get rid of the government mandates over what can and cannot be part of what is called health insurance. Let consumers and insurers get together and decide this for themselves. This would immediately create a variety of new lower-priced options.

Matt Kibbe is a leading advocate for personal, civil and economic liberties. An economist by training, Kibbe is a public policy expert, bestselling author and political commentator. He served as Senior Advisor to Concerned American Voters, a Rand Paul Super PAC. He is also Distinguished Senior Fellow at the Austrian Economic Center in Vienna, Austria. He is a member of the FEE faculty network and cooperates in running Free the People.

Obvious ones like YouTube are on it, as are less obvious ones like FoxNews.com. Twitter is on it, too (though the people running the show over there are doing their best to make it a safe space for commies).

Now you don't need me to tell you that it's an outrage that the Chinese are being kept behind this firewall.

At the same time, until very recently, we were all behind the firewall of NBC, ABC, and CBS. Nobody challenging the version of events coming from those sources had a prayer of being heard.

Every college student in America struggled with the same firewall: you're going to get leftist propaganda, and no competing points of view will be acknowledged, much less addressed.

Same was true for adults who looked back on their educations and wondered: have I been a victim of educational malpractice?

Yes. Yes, you have.

Black Friday weekend is the best time to get your hands on a subscription to Tom Woods' Liberty Classroom.

We'll cure that educational malpractice. We're bursting through that firewall.

So grab your flame-resistant suit and firefighter boots and march on over to Liberty Classroom with all the other libertarians this weekend:

"Get the equivalent of a Ph.D. in libertarian thought and free-market economics online for just 24 cents a day." Most of us learned politically correct U.S. history in school. The economics was at least as bad.
It's never too late to learn the truth.
At Liberty Classroom, you can learn real U.S. history, Western civilization, and free-market economics from professors you can trust.
Short on time? No problem. You can learn in your car.
​FIND OUT MORE HERE

Purchasing your Amazon items through this search box supports libertyLOL and doesn't cost you a penny more at checkout!

What every libertarian needs to know to articulate the free-market point of view to unsympathetic audiences

Each month, for less than the price of a movie ticket, Liberty Classroom gives you access to stimulating, though-provoking lectures and discussions on the key ideas of libertarianism, capitalism, and free-market economics.

Our vast library of audio and video classes includes 30 lectures on conservatism and libertarianism … 59 lectures on the history of political thought … 31 lectures on what’s wrong with textbook economics 20 lectures on logic … and much more – hundreds in all.

MORE FROM LIBERTYLOL:

How's this for a novelty: Tom Woods graduated from Harvard University and managed to keep his sanity.

It wasn't easy.

One of his professors required him to buy his books from a store called Revolution Books. The communist mass murderers of the 20th century adorned the walls.

He refused to do it.

Every night at dinner there were people selling the Workers Vanguard -- an openly communist newspaper -- outside the dining hall. Tom debated them, but as you can imagine, it was pretty hopeless.

Tom would up graduating with a degree in history with high honors. He went on to get his Ph.D. from Columbia University.

But you know what? He had to learn an awful lot on his own. There was plenty of non-p.c. history he was never going to learn in a Harvard classroom.

And this is a major reason people educate their children at home: they want them to learn the truth.

America's universities -- not to mention our high schools and junior high schools -- aren't exactly the best sources for that.

Nearly five years ago now Tom decided to fight back.

He created Liberty Classroom, where people can learn the real history and economics they won't get in traditional school.

The election has brought out the crazies, and you no doubt want to win all those debates you're getting dragged into. But do you find that although you know you're right, you just don't have the information you need at your fingertips?

Never lose another debate.

Liberty Classroom has 17 courses (and they're always adding more), plus Q&A forums where you can get all your questions answered by some of the smartest, most accomplished scholars in the liberty movement.

Become a better debater while driving your car.

Plus our Q&A forums: imagine, when you're stumped in a debate, being able to get your questions answered by Dr. Robert Murphy, one of the world's most prolific free-market economists, or Dr. Kevin Gutzman, author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution, or by Dr. Woods himself?

For Black Friday Liberty Classroom is having its biggest sale of year but it's only Today through Cyber Monday.

The universities have become propaganda factories. Tom is fighting back.

Recently Facebook has provided us with a list of fake news media outlets. Having read it, I can only suggest that the list is incomplete. I would like to note that the following fake stories were widely distributed in major media outlets and yet these outlets, even when repeatedly publishing fake stories, seem to have been missed by Facebook's helpful list. Let's recall ten famous stories that were circulated that later turned out to be fake.

9. The widespread publication of the Congressional testimony of 15-year old Nayirah regarding the Iraqi troops dumping Kuwaiti babies from incubators onto the floor. Turns out that Nayirah was Nayirah al-Sabah, daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to the US, who wasn't even in Kuwait at the time of the invasion.

I would defy anyone to produce a list showing a single US/European media outlet tied to a greater number of utterly fake news stories than The NY Times. Who can forget The NY Times accepting the Pentagon version of the events in the Gulf of Tonkin, which led to the disastrous expansion of the War in Vietnam? Even without referring to the fabled Pulitzer Prize-winning Walter Duranty, a liar who managed to ignore the mass slaughter of the people of Russia by Stalin, I still think The NY Times can fairly be credited with inciting or covering up more mass murders than any media outlet anywhere in the world. When Duranty is included in the mix, there can be no doubt which media outlet has published the biggest fake news over the last 100 years. Remember the words of Elaine Bennis to Jerry about her orgasms, "fake, fake, fake, fake". You have been warned.

MORE FROM LIBERTYLOL:

FREE BITCOIN! When you buy $100 Bitcoin through this link, you'll earn $10 of FREE Bitcoin!

Six Bullets Dodged with Hillary's Loss

The current news cycle is monopolized by two narratives. In one, Trump supporters are cheering the great and promising future. In the other, oppositional progressives are screeching about how hateful and daft he and his supporters are. But in the midst of this chaotic national quarrel, one important person has managed to slip away: Hillary Clinton. Not only metaphorically but literally. Maybe she’s seeking asylum in Russia.

Anyway, while Trump’s impending reign isn’t anything to be ecstatic over, a relief of what America avoided in a Clinton presidency is definitely warranted. So let’s take a moment to examine some avoided disasters that likely would’ve happened had Hillary Clinton won.

The Death of the Sharing Economy

Last year Hillary pledged to "crack down" on companies like Uber and Airbnb.Democrats and even some Republicans have expressed their disgust of the abusive exploitation that’s found in the sharing economy. And by abusive exploitation, they mean disgust at innovative markets that are free from their regulatory micromanagement and competitive to their lobbied interests. Hillary Clinton is on the same track. Last year she pledged to “crack down” on companies like Uber, Lyft, Airbnb, Lending Club, Dogvacay, etc. These are companies that are frowned upon by taxi and hotel cartels, street corner title loan shops, and many more awful, out-of-date institutions. With Hillary out of office, the sharing economy and all those who benefit from its employment opportunities and convenience get to live to see another day.

Minority Unemployment

Minimum wage increases, overtime rules, high corporate taxes; all these policies have historically and presently had a negative impact on employment opportunities among minority communities. This is particularly true of youth and blacks in middle- and lower-class America. Hillary Clinton supports all of these initiatives and more. Her policies included manufactured outsourcing of labor due to uncompetitive corporate tax rates, which disincentivizes businesses to stay in the States, and, instead, offsets the insane tax by employing workers in other countries like China and Mexico. So when it comes to the American labor force and those who are un- or underemployed, they may have dodged a huge bullet.

Globalism and Imperialism

War with Russia is bad, m’kay? Hillary’s foreign policy mainly consisted of the same hawkish neoconservative interventionism as George W. Bush. It also included expansion of mass surveillance, the continuation of illegal execution of civilians via drones, and hostile sanctioning of world powers. This would likely end in the same results of Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Yemen spread throughout the Middle East. In addition to terrible military strategy, she’s also a staunch globalist, using government to achieve it. This is not to be confused with the internationalization of cooperative cultures and markets. She wants global governance, which means increased concentration of elitist wealth, power, and bureaucratic controls over our everyday lives.

Healthcare

It was she who reminded voters that Obamacare used to be Hillarycare. This is not something you want to brag about in the same month the government announced premiums would rise between 10% and 60%, adding to a bill people are forced to pay, for healthcare they can’t afford to use. This program is a disaster. It’s no wonder that 83% of voters who hated the program rejected her at the ballot. Whatever comes after – and everyone knows that Trump already walked back from his promise to repeal – it is not likely to be as bad as it would have been if a Hillary-in-denial shepherded this program out of its current morass.

Guns

Hillary has made no secret of her opposition to the Second Amendment.Hillary has made no secret of her opposition to the Second Amendment. She wants increased restrictions on ownership, use, and distribution of firearms. For people like me who value their ability to defend themselves and their neighbors, and partake in a fun recreational sport, Hillary Clinton’s defeat is good news. And with her out of the way, things like the Hearing Protection Act, which calls for the removal of suppressors from the NFA registry, and the Annual Defense Authorization bill, which would allow military personnel to carry their firearms on base, have a chance of success. This is what should be meant when referring to common sense gun laws. The removal of bureaucracy and infringement, not the expansion of it.

Energy

Clean energy development is a necessary and beneficial innovation that should be, and is being, supported by various companies such as Tesla Motors, Shell, British Petroleum, General Electric, Boeing, etc. But while these green energy investments are awesome, they’re also expensive and often come at your expense.

Clinton favored artificially inflating costs on many industries, like oil and coal, causing higher energy prices for average Americans. She also favored increasing already-challenging barriers for developing nations to afford the vital energy to jumpstart their economies. Trump may have said green energy is a Chinese hoax, but chances are he’s not going to prohibit private companies from continuing their investments in renewable alternatives. In contrast, Clinton definitely would’ve sanctioned the fossil fuel industry, leading to even more financial hardship for the already-crippled middle class.

Some may have their fingers crossed for Trump's promise to make America great again, while others are finding ways to numb their fears in dismay. Regardless of your prediction of what the future yields, one fact remains true. The guaranteed continuation of progressive attacks on enterprise, growth, and liberty was avoided. And I think that warrants a bit of relief for all of us.

MORE FROM LIBERTYLOL:

I've said that I understand why some people feel qualms about Donald Trump, and I do. I can understand why some people would be worried.

That said, it's time for the protesters to go home. If you have a job or are in school, then it's time for you to stop shirking your responsibilities. If you're working age and able-bodied (and are not independently wealthy) but do not have a job and are not in school, then in addition to stopping your protest, it's also time for you to stop expecting your parents and society in general to care for you.

Protesting unaddressed injustices, unaddressed Constitutional violations, and similar grievances is legitimate: that should happen. Unfortunately, the Left is de-legitimizing the act of protest by frequently defaulting to protest when circumstances merely cause them to be angry.

Donald Trump, flawed though he is, was elected fairly. The process worked without evidence of significant fraud. (This is the case for all of our elections, so it's really time to stop conspiratorially talking about electoral fraud and rigging.) As far as we can tell, he was duly and fairly elected President. Thus, there is no point in protesting because there is nothing to protest.

you don't feel truly alive unless you're marching in the streets while working men and women try to get home to their families, then wait until our fairly elected President-elect has dropped "-elect" from his title and has actually taken some sort of governing action. He may well conduct himself in such a way that warrants protesting. Merely winning a fair election does not rise to that level though.

If after reading this you still feel that the best use of your time is engaging in utterly hopeless acts of protest, then at least protest something worth protesting. For the first time in our history, in 2016 a hostile foreign government ﻿directly interfered with an American election﻿. That is woefully unacceptable, and the fact that our government still has not yet taken concrete steps in response - still has not made it abundantly clear that there are tangible consequences for this behavior - is itself a shirking of responsibility.

All the way around, there is room for more calmness, acceptance, and respect (obviously). Critique Trump along the way - good and bad - when it's justified. We all know that I intend to do the same. Let's not protest until he's had a chance to show us what he will actually do though.

In 1977, shortly after agreeing to work with me to create Free To Choose, Milton Friedman introduced me to Clay LaForce and Armen Alchian. In the spring of 1978 Clay proposed that we work together to create video recordings of conversations with all the recipients of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics.

Sadly, despite the success of these recordings, funding was not found to continue the project. Fortunately, we captured these fascinating chats with an extraordinary defender of liberty.
​

"The idea that you can use external pressure to change people... seems to me morally a very doubtful belief."Friedrich A. Hayek
Interview with Bob Chitester, 1978

"Get the equivalent of a Ph.D. in libertarian thought and free-market economics online for just 24 cents a day."
Most of us learned politically correct U.S. history in school. The economics was at least as bad.
It's never too late to learn the truth.
At Liberty Classroom, you can learn real U.S. history, Western civilization, and free-market economics from professors you can trust.
Short on time? No problem. You can learn in your car.
​FIND OUT MORE HERE

But we have a very powerful weapon in this battle. It’s called evidence.

And now there’s even more data on our side. The Institute for Economic Affairs in London has just published an excellent new book on fiscal policy. Edited by Philip Booth, Taxation, Government Spending, & Economic Growth is must reading for those who want to understand the deleterious impact of the modern welfare state.

The IEA’s Director General, Mark Littlewood, explains the goal in the book’s foreword.

The authors of this monograph have taken a rigorous and data-driven approach to discovering and documenting the size of the state and how government spending and regulation affect the wider economy. But, most importantly, they have undertaken a major and original statistical analysis of the economic costs of high taxes and, equally importantly, which taxes cause the most economic harm.

The most depressing part of the book is contained in Chapter 3. As you can see from Table 7, the burden of government used to be rather modest in western nations. Indeed, I’ve made the point that it was during the era of small government that the western world became rich.

And the book is filled with lots of useful information in that quest. In Chapter 4, David Smith explains the interaction between fiscal policy and economic performance, noting that excessive government not only reduces the level of economic output, but also the future growth rate.

…increased governmental consumption appears to reduce national output. This is likely to be because the resources diverted to supply such expenditures would be better employed in the private sector. In particular, the evidence from international cross-section and panel-data studies suggests that almost all increases in the share of governmental expenditure in GDP lead to a near one-for-one reduction in the share allocated to private capital formation. This under-capitalisation takes the economy onto a lower, but parallel, growth path according to ‘neo-classical’ growth models but leads to an additional permanent reduction in the growth rate in the context of a ‘post-neo-classical endogenous-growth’ model.

He provides a micro-economic explanation for why various government activities hinder growth (I offer eight reasons in this video, by the way).

Transfer payments are likely to reduce economic growth in various ways, not least because of the supply-side effects of the taxes necessary to finance them. Unlike with government investment, there is unlikely to be any offsetting effect on growth. These have grown rapidly over the last century. Transfers in the form of pensions and other payments to people at older ages are likely to reduce saving in the private sector and fixed capital formation. However, the most potentially counter-productive public expenditure appears to be paying means-tested welfare benefits to the population of working age. These reduce potential GDP because of their impact in reducing the supply of labour to the private sector, which exacerbates the effect of the taxes necessary to finance them. …there has been a big increase in government spending over the last 100 years. However, within the government spending envelope, there has been a particularly large increase in those items that damage the economy most while those items that tend to have a beneficial effect on growth or which damage the economy least have been reduced.

In other words, he’s saying that not only is government too big. He’s also pointing out that much of the spending is seemingly designed to impose economic damage by discouraging the productive use and allocation of labor and capital.

…statistical evidence that suggests that the negative effects of higher taxes and budget deficits on private activity are identical in the long run and quite similar in the short term. This confirms that the primary issue is the size of state spending compared with national output and that the choice between tax and bond finance is a secondary consideration. Ultimately, government spending is financed either by taxes levied now or deferred taxes.

…it is reasonable to ask whether there are ‘growth-maximising’ or ‘welfare-maximising’ levels of government expenditure. …The growth-maximising share of government spending in GDP was some 20–25 per cent of GDP. This was based on the fact that ratios in this range were typical of the fast growing South East Asian ‘Tiger’ economies, countries such as Japan and Korea in their high growth phases, and even Australia, Canada and Spain in the 1950s. This indicative range should probably be revised down to some 18.5–23.5 per cent, using current (June 2016) UK definitions.

Incidentally, I like and dislike what he wrote in this section.

I like it because the obvious conclusion is that the burden of government is excessive in both the United States (37.9 percent of GDP according to OECD fiscal data) and the United Kingdom (43.3 percent of GDP). And we can use this data to argue for much-needed spending restraint.

But I don’t like the above passage because I think the growth-maximizing size of government is well below 20 percent of GDP. As I’ve previously explained, academic researchers are constrained by the lack of data for small-government economies. So when they crunch numbers (relying in all cases on post-WWII data, and in most cases on much more recent figures), they basically find that Hong Kong and Singapore grow the fastest and they think that implies the public sector should consume 20 percent of economic output.

But that implies, if you recall the data in Table 7 from above, that nations would have enjoyed more growth in 1870 if they doubled the burden of government spending. I think that’s nonsensical. What’s really happening is that researchers are simply measuring the downward-sloping portion of the Rahn Curve.

But just because Hong Kong and Singapore are the first two jurisdictions that can be plotted, that doesn’t mean the Rahn Curve peaks at that point.

But I realize I’m nit-picking, so let’s go back to the book.

In the following chapter, Professor Patrick Miniford shares some additional research on the link between government spending and economic performance. I especially like how he shares a very useful table looking at some scholarly findings on the relationship between the overall fiscal burden and national prosperity.

He also shares the conclusions from additional research.

Later studies show similar associations. For example, Afonso and Furceri (2008) examine a number of EU and other OECD countries over the period 1970–2004. As well as several components of government expenditure and taxation, they include variables such as initial output, population growth, investment ratio, human capital and openness. Their finding is that a 1 percentage point rise in the government spending to GDP ratio cuts growth in the OECD by 0.12 per cent and in the EU by 0.13 per cent. …overall, the tax (or government spending) and growth studies, indicate a strong association between the two variables. As a rule of thumb, it would appear that a 10 percentage point fall in the share of national income taken in tax would lead to slightly more than a 1 percentage point increase in the growth rate – results of this order of magnitude occur over and over again.

And he discusses some new statistical findings, along with the potential implications for the United Kingdom.

…the relationship between the growth rate of GDP per capita, the tax rate, a dummy variable specific to each time period, and a dummy variable specific to each country is modelled. Panel data were used that were averaged over consecutive decades from 1970 to 2000 for 100 countries. …overall, the modelling found an overwhelmingly strong negative relationship between tax and growth…there is an elasticity of growth to tax of approximately –1.4 at the mean of the growth rate (1.6 per cent). …a fall in the tax rate by 25 per cent of its existing value (from about 40 per cent to about 30 per cent of national income in the UK) would lead to a rise in the growth rate to 2.7 per cent if the initial growth rate were 2 per cent. This is roughly in line with the growth regression results discussed above.

I’m sure the data and conclusions also apply to the United States.

Which brings me back to where I started. I fretted yesterday that Trump’s election will be a challenge to advocates of economic liberty. Indeed, he explicitly called for more infrastructure spending and implicitly called for more VA spending in his acceptance speech. Combined with his apparent rejection of entitlement reform, this doesn’t instill much confidence.

But that’s all the more reason to disseminate this new research on the bad consequences of letting America become more like France.

Daniel J. Mitchell is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute who specializes in fiscal policy, particularly tax reform, international tax competition, and the economic burden of government spending. He also serves on the editorial board of the Cayman Financial Review.

MORE FROM LIBERTYLOL:

With the effectiveness of their thought-control mission breaking down all around them, leftists are going hysterical.

Last week the San Francisco teachers' union, the United Educators of San Francisco, released a "lesson plan" for students in the wake of Donald Trump's election.

It is exactly what you would expect.

Nobody other than leftists has a point of view worth respecting. Everyone is a "racist" and "sexist."

Here's how it begins:

"Tomorrow, I hope that you will take the time to put all lessons aside and talk to our students about what has happened and how they feel. Please, let them speak and be heard. Let them say what is on their minds, this is crucial for our school and our community. Let us please not sidestep the fact that a racist and sexist man has become the president of our country by pandering to a huge racist and sexist base."

And now, the "objectives," followed by my translation:

"Students express their concerns and voice their thoughts/feelings."

Of course, they'd better be the correct thoughts, or they'll be reeducated by the San Francisco teachers' union until they turn 18 or die of lunacy, whichever comes first.

"Students gain empowerment/hope."

Students are taught that bullhorns, marches, and political activism are the best way to improve their lives, and are not juvenile, demeaning, or dehumanizing in any way.

"Students feel safe and respected."

What this will mean for any student who, in this atmosphere of intimidation, dares utter a thought that diverges from the herd, is unclear, but given the tone of this document, this provision is chilling.

"Anti-Racist/Anti-Sexist/Anti-Islamophobic/Anti-Homophobic (etc.,) teaching lenses are magnified and put into full use tomorrow and students should come away with an understanding of this through discussions held in class/norms established."

No one will be allowed to mention racial crime statistics. No one will be able to mention differences between men and women -- we have declared, a priori, that there can be no such differences. All income differences among races and sexes is attributable exclusively to "discrimination" and "white supremacy."

Although criticism of Christianity is of course welcome, no one may wonder about any aspect of Islam, which is an unalloyed good not to be questioned. And anyone who thinks commercial transactions -- cake baking, to choose an example at random -- should occur peacefully and without threats of violence, is "homophobic."

"Students gain a working knowledge of context of American racial violence, sexism etc."

Can't imagine any bias coming through here. I'm sure the Ron Unz article on racial killings will be assigned, for balance. On the off chance that it isn't, I link to it here.

The instructions continue:

"Let the students speak one at a time. PLEASE VALIDATE STUDENTS FEELINGS. Example: 'What you are saying is valid,' or ' hear you,' 'I support you, I understand you,' 'you are right and this is unjust.' Let them speak, guide the discussion, use a talking piece if necessary."

Huh. Well, suppose someone said, "I personally think the likelihood of war with Russia is now diminished, and this is more important to me than whether the president says sweet things to me before sending me off to die."

Would that student's feelings be validated?

In my view, the more the left pulls stunts like this, the better. Americans are getting a valuable education in the true nature of the left. Any fool watching television, even with a biased media, can see where all the hate is coming from.

Then this warning not to instruct students to avoid bad language:

"(I know that they might curse and swear, but you would too if you have suffered under the constructs of white supremacy or experienced sexism, or any isms or lack of privilege. You would especially do so if you have not yet developed all of the tools necessary to fight this oppression. It is our job to help them develop these tools, ie the language etc., Let’s not penalize and punish our youth for how they express themselves at this stage.)"

Of course: white privilege. Let's test that theory. What race would anyone in his right mind want to belong to when applying to college? Has any black student ever lied and claimed to be white on a college application? If not, why not?

Then we read, in bold: DO NOT: Tell them that we have LOST and that we have to accept this. We do not have to accept ANYTHING except that we must and will fight for justice against an unjust system and against unjust people.

What exactly would minority folks in America's inner cities have "lost," exactly, by the election of Donald Trump? All those world-class schools black and Democratic mayors and city governments have built for them? Those enviable, crime-free neighborhoods they've had over the past 50 years of Democratic rule? What, exactly, are they losing?

Finally, the Resources section of the lesson plan is drawn from Michael Moore and other leftists, and is replete with horrified outrage that convicted felons can't vote.

The point of education, in other words, is to make students think a certain way. An inane, fact-free way, to boot. Trump Derangement Syndrome is bringing it out of them more brazenly than ever.Everyone has a tipping point. For some of you, maybe it's this. Maybe it's the next thing. But whenever that tipping point comes, your liberation is one click away:

"Get the equivalent of a Ph.D. in libertarian thought and free-market economics online for just 24 cents a day." Most of us learned politically correct U.S. history in school. The economics was at least as bad.
It's never too late to learn the truth.
At Liberty Classroom, you can learn real U.S. history, Western civilization, and free-market economics from professors you can trust.
Short on time? No problem. You can learn in your car.
​FIND OUT MORE HERE